Florida House Republican Ryler Sirois introduced a new bill on Monday, aiming to make it illegal to manufacture, sell, hold, or distribute lab-grown meat within the state.
Those are positions I consider conservative, and hold myself, that aren’t reflected in current Republican policy.
None of those are specific to conservatism, and I would say some of the opposites of those position, like opposition to gay marriage and abortion, has historically always been part of conservatism.
More interestingly would be to learn what specific conservative policies you subscribe to. Policies which you don’t think exists in other ideologies.
like opposition to gay marriage and abortion, has historically always been part of conservatism
Speaking for the poster, probably incorrectly, but while I consider myself liberal, and have long been a support of gay rights and marriage, I always laughed when I was defending it (like early 2000) because I was always making the conservative argument that the government shouldn’t be regulating which two consenting adults can join a contract with each other.
Classically speaking, it’s a politically conservative position. It’s just that republicans, who pretend to be conservatives, also tend to be religious and let those beliefs often influence what they claim is the conservative position.
But the state staying out of who gets married is, no doubt, an actual politically conservative position.
Conservatism is essentially about keeping things the way they are or restoring things to the way they were believed to have been in the past.
So rights and liberties that people have enjoyed for a long time will be defended by conservatives; rights and liberties that are only newly gained will be opposed by conservatives. New technologies may well be seen with suspicion due to what they threaten to disrupt: the status quo in America is that there’s lots of cattle farming and if lab-grown meat makes the farming of real cattle unprofitable and leads to many cattle farmers losing their jobs, a conservatives focus will be on the job losses and instability, not on the opportunities to produce meat more efficiently, ecologically and without cruelty.
All of these are classically liberal positions, and most of them are compatible with progressivism, and with socialism. Admittedly, since liberalism is the foundation of the USA, and the global norm today, classical liberalism is technically a conservative perspective, now, but it really isn’t what most people have meant by “conservative” for the last hundred years or so.
I mean even those of us that aren’t batshit (I agree with them but I’d add allowing prostitution) are still kind of batshit. What I think is progress in real life vs my utopia is the difference.
I just realized I wrote “factory-farmed meat” rather than “lab-cultured meat”. I meant lab-cultured meat.
Factory farmed meat should maybe be banned, but if it happens it should be on the basis of adopting animals rights into the constitution then banning it on that basis. I don’t think one-off legislation is the right way to do such things.
If the meat is grown in a lab, no animals or their rights are disturbed. That’s the point. They’re not growing brains. They’re not going to gain sentience. It’s just flesh.
For me political conservatives recognise the value of many of our establishments and don’t want to see radical, untested, change risk what we have.
Progressives want to see us improve our systems, institutions, and cultural norms. Laudable goals, however the goals and implementation approaches can produce results that diminish, rather than enhance, what we already have.
Socially conservative values, to me, are another kettle of fish. I know socially progressive conservatives and socially regressive progressives.
Libertarianism is also a separate, cross over, category for me. How power is shared between individuals and government is a critical foundation for how we function and can once again be adopted by politically conservative or progressive ideas.
Disclaimers:
Not American,
Libertarian leaning
Socially progressive
Somewhere between a political conservative and a political progressive
Idk, restricting access to anything is “conservative” in practice and at the heart. Conserving is the main action a ‘conservative’ must practice. Don’t eat too much food. Don’t drink too much alcohol (if any). Don’t have too much sex. i.e. conserve your wants and needs so as to… well, at this point they impart religious contexts to justify why it will be worth it to deny yourself in the end.
If I were a conservative though, the part that would piss me off is when I find out my so-called “leaders” are engaging in the same loose activities I’ve been lead to feel guilty for having thought of and brother, that’s A LOT of conservatives. In just politics it’s almost always republicans, and in the church, it’s almost always the pastors/leadership. You conservatives have a lot of reconciliation to do if you ever expect to win an election fairly.
Conserving doesn’t mean reducing, it means protecting what already exists. Restricting access to birth control, for example, I would not call politically conservative.
Republicans have, at different points in time, been fairly forward leaning in their own way. Have a google of progressive policies implemented by republicans.
Social conservatism is more akin to what you are describing rather than the conservative political movement (and has a large section of the republicans in its sway at the moment). The thing they are trying to protect is their own personal moral view of the world and in so doing they are willing to not conserve the current political system to achieve this goal.
Liberalism is the ideology of personal liberty, from which capitalist-like principles emerge (eg private property rights). It’s a small distinction but an important one in my opinion. Enlightenment philosophers didn’t set out to enslave humanity under the thumb of capitalism - they set out to create an idealistic ethic around the rights of the individual and accidentally created a new form of economic feudalism.
Yeah but “putting a conservative amount of jelly on your toast” has nothing to do with being a conservationist, because “a conservative amount of government” isn’t what exist or has historically existed.
I think your analogy is fundamentally flawed, because just because the words (“conservative amount of jelly” and “being a political conservative”) are same, they don’t have anything else in common.
It is like when Republicans claim that the US isn’t a democracy, because they are afraid it means support for the Democrats. Two different words with different meanings.
This is an example of why I call myself conservative, but would never vote Republican.
Today’s republicans aren’t conservatives.
If you don’t mind me asking, what positions do you hold as a conservative that are different from modern Republicans?
Those are positions I consider conservative, and hold myself, that aren’t reflected in current Republican policy.
None of those are specific to conservatism, and I would say some of the opposites of those position, like opposition to gay marriage and abortion, has historically always been part of conservatism.
More interestingly would be to learn what specific conservative policies you subscribe to. Policies which you don’t think exists in other ideologies.
Speaking for the poster, probably incorrectly, but while I consider myself liberal, and have long been a support of gay rights and marriage, I always laughed when I was defending it (like early 2000) because I was always making the conservative argument that the government shouldn’t be regulating which two consenting adults can join a contract with each other.
Classically speaking, it’s a politically conservative position. It’s just that republicans, who pretend to be conservatives, also tend to be religious and let those beliefs often influence what they claim is the conservative position.
But the state staying out of who gets married is, no doubt, an actual politically conservative position.
When I think of conservatism, I think of lies, bigotry, theft, pollution, selfishness and stupidity.
Note that in his reply, he only contests pllution.
Literally about the closest I’ve seen to someone declaring their party’s shit doesn’t stink.
“Conservatives pollute!” lmao
Are you saying they don’t?
This is just classical liberalism
Traditional conservatism is really a flavour of classical liberalism.
Conservatism is essentially about keeping things the way they are or restoring things to the way they were believed to have been in the past.
So rights and liberties that people have enjoyed for a long time will be defended by conservatives; rights and liberties that are only newly gained will be opposed by conservatives. New technologies may well be seen with suspicion due to what they threaten to disrupt: the status quo in America is that there’s lots of cattle farming and if lab-grown meat makes the farming of real cattle unprofitable and leads to many cattle farmers losing their jobs, a conservatives focus will be on the job losses and instability, not on the opportunities to produce meat more efficiently, ecologically and without cruelty.
All of these are classically liberal positions, and most of them are compatible with progressivism, and with socialism. Admittedly, since liberalism is the foundation of the USA, and the global norm today, classical liberalism is technically a conservative perspective, now, but it really isn’t what most people have meant by “conservative” for the last hundred years or so.
Sounds more like libertarian that isn’t batshit
I mean even those of us that aren’t batshit (I agree with them but I’d add allowing prostitution) are still kind of batshit. What I think is progress in real life vs my utopia is the difference.
No such thing. Every single guy like this forgets to tell you the six other crazy things they believe.
And it’s always related to the age of consent.
I’m a progressive and I agree with all but the 3rd of those points.
You feel that factory farmed meat should be banned?
Maybe not banned, but at the very least heavily reigned in.
I’m a progressive and agree with every one of your points.
Not to put words in your mouth but your position seems to make sure we pump the brakes on progressive policy rather than stifle it.
Which line up with how Jeff Flake presents how the Republican Party should act as conservatives in his book.
That’s what bureaucracy is for.
I just realized I wrote “factory-farmed meat” rather than “lab-cultured meat”. I meant lab-cultured meat.
Factory farmed meat should maybe be banned, but if it happens it should be on the basis of adopting animals rights into the constitution then banning it on that basis. I don’t think one-off legislation is the right way to do such things.
If the meat is grown in a lab, no animals or their rights are disturbed. That’s the point. They’re not growing brains. They’re not going to gain sentience. It’s just flesh.
deleted by creator
For me political conservatives recognise the value of many of our establishments and don’t want to see radical, untested, change risk what we have.
Progressives want to see us improve our systems, institutions, and cultural norms. Laudable goals, however the goals and implementation approaches can produce results that diminish, rather than enhance, what we already have.
Socially conservative values, to me, are another kettle of fish. I know socially progressive conservatives and socially regressive progressives.
Libertarianism is also a separate, cross over, category for me. How power is shared between individuals and government is a critical foundation for how we function and can once again be adopted by politically conservative or progressive ideas.
Disclaimers:
Not American, Libertarian leaning Socially progressive Somewhere between a political conservative and a political progressive
Idk, restricting access to anything is “conservative” in practice and at the heart. Conserving is the main action a ‘conservative’ must practice. Don’t eat too much food. Don’t drink too much alcohol (if any). Don’t have too much sex. i.e. conserve your wants and needs so as to… well, at this point they impart religious contexts to justify why it will be worth it to deny yourself in the end.
If I were a conservative though, the part that would piss me off is when I find out my so-called “leaders” are engaging in the same loose activities I’ve been lead to feel guilty for having thought of and brother, that’s A LOT of conservatives. In just politics it’s almost always republicans, and in the church, it’s almost always the pastors/leadership. You conservatives have a lot of reconciliation to do if you ever expect to win an election fairly.
Conserving doesn’t mean reducing, it means protecting what already exists. Restricting access to birth control, for example, I would not call politically conservative.
Republicans have, at different points in time, been fairly forward leaning in their own way. Have a google of progressive policies implemented by republicans.
Social conservatism is more akin to what you are describing rather than the conservative political movement (and has a large section of the republicans in its sway at the moment). The thing they are trying to protect is their own personal moral view of the world and in so doing they are willing to not conserve the current political system to achieve this goal.
I hate to tell you friend. You aren’t conservative and that is okay. The other side is really not all that bad.
So welcome.
It’s conservative in terms of government power.
Like putting a conservative amount of jelly on your toast means a small amount. Putting a liberal amount of jelly on your toast means a large amount.
The terms conservative and liberal refer to how much government jelly you’re putting on the toast of society.
Someone who seeks to conserve things is a conservationist.
No, this is quite wrong.
Conservatives wish to maintain the status quo and pull back changes made to the status quo.
Liberalism is an ideology of free-market Capitalism and personal liberty.
Neither directly cares about the size of government as long as it stays within those boundaries.
Liberalism is the ideology of personal liberty, from which capitalist-like principles emerge (eg private property rights). It’s a small distinction but an important one in my opinion. Enlightenment philosophers didn’t set out to enslave humanity under the thumb of capitalism - they set out to create an idealistic ethic around the rights of the individual and accidentally created a new form of economic feudalism.
Sure! They were wrong, of course, but that’s why I mentioned that it’s centered on personal liberty with the principles of Capitalism.
Yeah but “putting a conservative amount of jelly on your toast” has nothing to do with being a conservationist, because “a conservative amount of government” isn’t what exist or has historically existed.
I think your analogy is fundamentally flawed, because just because the words (“conservative amount of jelly” and “being a political conservative”) are same, they don’t have anything else in common.
It is like when Republicans claim that the US isn’t a democracy, because they are afraid it means support for the Democrats. Two different words with different meanings.
Tell that to the Australians.
i had to scroll pretty far to find someone who actually knew what conservative meant. And only to find you’re downvoted!
lol i hope people don’t vote like this irl or democracy is doomed
Isn’t it easier just to tell people that you’re a dummy?